Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.2

Message 10 of 638 (713575)
12-14-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PlanManStan
12-14-2013 11:10 AM

Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
Welcome PMS ... eh ... a lot of us here are/were married so PMS is probably not such a good short version of your name. If you don't mind I think I'll just call you Stan.
I don't understand what you mean by "falsifiability cannot be assured". I would say that there is a dichotomy of false and not false. No in between.
Falsifiability is a specific scientific concept relating to the formation of hypotheses and theories. The concept is that the hypothesis must be such that there is the possibility of finding evidence that would falsify the hypothesis. It does not relate to whether it is true or false at the moment but just that the hypothesis can be tested.
Example ...
Hypothesis: All ravens are green.
This is falsifiable.
It is testable by looking at ravens to see if there are any non-green ones. If one is found then the hypothesis is false. Note, however, that if all the ravens we ever see are all green, unless we have actually seen ALL ravens, everywhere through all time, then there is still the possibility that there is a non-green raven out there somewhere that we have yet to see. The hypothesis is still valid and still falsifiable though it has not yet been proven false.
The more tests, the more evidence, we collect that does not falsify the theory serves to make the theory stronger and more reliable.
Special Relativity is one of our most powerful theories. Everywhere we look, every time we test it, we cannot find a violation. But, it is still falsifiable. All we need do is find a violation, any violation, just one would do.
All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable. If there is no way to ever show a theory false (and, again, that does not mean it has or will be or is false) then it is not science. It's BS.
Hypothesis: God made the earthquake by causing a fault to slip.
This hypothesis can not even be tested, let alone falsified. There is no possibility (fudge factor required) to ever show any evidence because no such evidence can exist. Not any for. Not any against. It is not falsifiable. It is not, therefore, a valid scientific hypothesis to be treated with any seriousness. It is ignored.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity - maybe
Edited by AZPaul3, : more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 11:10 AM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 4:08 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.2

Message 232 of 638 (725258)
04-25-2014 7:32 AM

EBCDIC to ASCII and Beyond
Hey folks, our creationist antagonist here, Ed67, is going to insist that the order of nucleics in DNA/RNA is a code and for very good reason. The reality is, as we here all know, that DNA/RNA mimic so closely a human-devised code that there is no reasonable option in conversation than to refer to them as codes. Language takes the expedient route to foster understanding even if that understanding isn't exactly accurate.
Big Bang explosion anyone?
The problem here is that our religionist friend, and he has left the clues multiple times in this thread, has not progressed from the DNA=code analogy he learned in high school. He is stuck in that juvenile analogy having failed to learn beyond the most basic.
In Ed67's case, this may be charade to bolster his religious case for creationism. But other aspects of his missives here indicate to me that he honestly does not see, and is trying very hard to not see, the disconnect between his "code" idea and his "thus god" conclusion. Without DNA/RNA defined as a "code" in the classic sense he cannot then jump to "all codes we have ever experienced were created by intelligence thus so must be DNA/RNA thus there are yhwh, elohim, jahovah, allah and their respective corteges complete with pronouncements of light, eloquent serpents and global inundations."
The rub comes with the reality that DNA/RNA, except for the superficial mimicry, is not anything like any code ever devised by human intellect. Human devised codes are arbitrary symbols, artificial human constructs, that, by agreement, represent other artificial human constructs. Letters for words, words for ideas; numbers for grids, grids for locations. Without a convention, a legend of agreed upon meanings between the symbol and its underlying construct, there is no code.
Though we may use arbitrary symbols (ACTG and sometimes U) in representing the DNA/RNA code the underlying property is not another construct but is a real physical entity that does not follow any artificial convention of understanding. The DNA/RNA "code" is just a facade to foster our understanding of the chemistry. These molecules have no choice but to act and react according to the physical rules of organic chemistry. Unlike the artificiality of a human code, this genetic code is a symbolic overlay for a physical reality that requires no intellect to conjure movement, only the electrochemical properties of the valence electrons.
To us it may look like a "code" but thymine couldn't care less what we call it and will do what it does because it has to regardless of the intellect selecting the symbol. No intelligently devised code on this planet works this way.
Ed67 is on an anti-science religious mission to redefine reality to his own emotional comfort, as is the case with all creationists. In Ed67's case he is not openly using verse from an infallible literalist bible. He is trying to hide behind a lab coat (buttoned up to the top to hide the crucifix) eschewing his true belief in his god for some amorphous intelligent designer. The nefarious purpose being to garner some political advantage in the hope that some day he and his colleagues can wrest control of the schools and of society from the people and bring them back, once again, to the church.
A rather verbose way of pointing out that the usage of "code" for a nucleic acid sequence is not of much concern. Ed67 will not, can not, acknowledge the fact that this informal usage of the word by geneticists, biologists, indeed all scientists, even in formal presentations and papers, does not give him the advantage his weak faith so desperately seeks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2014 7:57 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.2

Message 243 of 638 (725316)
04-25-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Ed67
04-25-2014 7:58 AM

Finally! Real code!
I think you guys have spent too much time sitting around congratulating each other. You've got some kind of creepy 'group think' going on where you all have developed the same blind spots.
Now that is code. Real code, not that bogus crap you've been pushing here. I can't say it is intelligently designed but it certainly is a human construct.
"group think" is code for being in substantial agreement on this specific issue and "blind" is code for disagreeing with the delusional ravings of IDiotology.
Yeah, Ed, you got us there. We often are that way.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 7:58 AM Ed67 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2014 5:11 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024